Comments

essays; I wasn't asking you to 'perform.' Fuck, why the defence? I asked you because I find what you say and how you say it is often thought-provoking. Take what I'm saying as a compliment and not in an arse licking way. Thanks for your nuances and long may you continue.

to your editorial, I am aplogising to you because I don't feel you was not being defensive but rather you were putting forward a critique as well as how you felt (initially or not?) about being asked to express yourself more. Still, through your editorials, it is clear you have an incisive mind and articulate. Anyway, I hope you do consider publishing your thoughts and not just have rattling around inside you. My compliment still stands :-)

but because it didn't say anything ("chisel is bad." yea, sure, so what?). ie, it WASN'T critical.
there are some editorials on what characteristics make an actual critique. i think there's also a totw.
but it's true that criticism is an act of love, so i appreciate the thought :)

The editorial by Chisel made think a few things about being an anon, and since they asked to be engaged, i’ll be happy to do so, since i mainly comment for the interaction.

So it turns out a few of my comments were mentioned in the “what’s new” new round up. I wonder if they would have not all been mentioned if it was clear they all came from the same anon.

Obviously, if everyone is an anon, it’s hard to tell who’s who, and that’s kinda the point. What is said stands or falls by itself, apart from who said it, for better and worse.

Names accumulate reputations, good or bad. Then what is said, attached to the name, is judged in light of the previous things that name has said, for better and worse.

Is talking to anon like talking to a stranger? What happens after a stranger introduces themselves and presents their name? Is the mystique or sense of possibility lost once one really gets to know someone?

Also anon let’s you troll like a dumbass one second, and then not have it affect on other’s perception of some serious thing you might say later. It also keeps people from knowing you, to a degree, which guards against cutting personal attacks. They can’t hurt your feelings if it’s anon that takes the fall!

I don’t know, just thinking. I think i’m probably not going to start a named account, nor a podcast, even though i agree with what Chisel said.

and i absolutely support anons as well. they're just not good for certain things. it is entirely feasible to be both anon and not anon, as i have been and will be again. but the issue was one of performance, and all anons are the same.

i also want to note, that while it's not a reason not to be anon, the consequences are not only to any individual anon person. one of the many consequences is the meta-phenomenon that conversations are much more tentative and easily derailed, as we have seen on anews, obviously. sometimes that's good, sometimes it's unfortunate.
as for anon-means-not-having-to-say-you're-sorry, that is a really important thing, but it also can stunt people's reasoning. i (after years of avoidance) appreciate being in a position where i have to defend/commit to arguments, as it encourages me to think things through in a non lazy manner. anews is a good place to do that, since one can abandon a name if one gets in too deep...

saying one thing (in this case, names) is good for a particular context is NOT saying other things (in this case anon comments) are bad!
stop being dualistic right now!
and of course i support anons. there is a creativity and a flow to conversation that is much more likely with anon-as-an-option.
there are also limitations.
but now i'm just repeating myself.
anyway, i think of anon as the main modern art form. we have only begun to explore its potential...

the phenomenon of certain characteristics/arguments getting named is funny. SE called an anon "kev" because of the anon's argument, and now you're claiming dualism as an emile thing (while i would call an emile on someone who is overly wordy about the same two basic concepts and only vaguely and occasionally responds to feedback).
so what will be named after tiredoldtroll? obviously doing a chisel will be writing editorials instead of just talking to people...

I've been almost exclusively anon here for years now and recently realized most of the same stuff you've been talking about. A fixed troll identity can be more effectively obnoxious! This is undoubtedly old news to some of the saltier @news veterans but I'm still learning new and usually awful things by hanging out here. Yay learning!

Hopefully nobody gets me in the crosshairs enough to assign a meme but we'll see.

What annoys me is that whoever this troll is, one person maybe, 1)Wheels,2) Tiredoldtroll, and that obnoxious crude 3)fartbong coke on flacid penis troll, they ARE trolls, but SirEinzeig and LeWay actual aren't crude, their comments are off on some intellectual crazy tangent, but sometimes they have reasonable ideas to give and don't harass other commenters, yet they are called trolls. It doesn't make sense to abuse these intelligent commenters, but this 3 in 1 troll is disgusting!!!

The word troll is insufficient to the task of describing all the various ways people can antagonistically interact on the internet. Generally speaking, there's a lot of trolling that I find really funny or interesting, and a lot that's vicious or boring. I think Le Way and SirEinzige do occasionally troll, but definitely not very often, and never in that abusive way. Tiredoldtroll is new so I don't really know what to think yet. I generally find myself thinking "name checks out" though some interesting conversations have emerged from their posts.

That coke boner troll though. Gross.

My captcha ends with "sEX" so it looks like the random number generator is trolling me too.

Again, worth mentioning that none of this matters but you'd do better if you remembered that both NEINzige and Le Wank have been extensively moderated for a long time now and both of them could easily have been described as "abusive" in their earlier days.

I don't think any of this counts as abuse at all but there are no saints here either.

who writes about (among other things) me being fisted with copies of The Unique, there is no apostrophe in Its in the title. it's always means "it is", unlike other possessives.
so, to spell it out, the title is The Unique and Its Property.
good luck in your future efforts.

Yet again one sharp analysis that is gold. We (and I) are still caught at playing this social game more than necessary, inflating our social image beyond our own reality... and what for? Do we really gain anything worth from it? There may be actually more to gain, like self-worth and a solid sense of wholeness, from living truthfully, even if that means not gaining more friends, relations, contracts and projects, where at least that means not living as a shadow ourselves, living as bullshit walking spooks. I'd like to also posit for a conflation of "truth" (as in being truthful, more than the Truth) with "freedom". How can one claim to be free by still living in a bunch of lies, that only are the expression of their own submission to social constraints? Of course there's no claim of purity here... only the homeless living like a Diogenes can be found as "socially truthful" in such a social order.

Beyond that, is the post-truth world anything new, or haven't we been only realizing its pervasiveness into our connection with more global affairs than our own daily lives? I don't recall a time when "truth" had any serious value in authoritarian politics, including democratic politics.

Politics are about nothing else than collectively building abstract constructs, to be imposed on a larger scale, beyond the group that built it, as an arbitrary rule. Politics have always been about "consensus realities".

Anything Trump has achieved was to make it more obvious, highlight it, to a broader public, but a the same time it's a failure for how the new Democrat crowd are pretending to a new-old political truth (socialism, basically) that is just a better lie to swallow. I'm expecting DSA to become just the political trebuchet it's meant to be, to be pushing a new wave of Left liberalism into the collapsing machine of the US government, giving it a much-awaited overhaul, greasing the cogs, sugaring the pill, making the State the new solution -again- out of a cataclysmic socio-economic context. But that'll also be just a simulacra.

Speaking of which... Baudrillard has been underrated over here. Personally I can't get out of my head the thing I witnessed last summer. The phenomena is hardly an interesting subject of conversation... or actually can it be an upcoming topic on Anarchybang? I doubt it would. A specific phenomena that isn't very relevant to talk about for how it is disconnected to any earthly matter whatsoever; yet its very reality subsumes some deeply disturbing implication... that there are indeed forces or intelligences far beyond our conceived human bubble world, or its perceptive construct, its "entendement", its self-serving kaleidoscope. Just like non-human animal life, it casts an extraneous abstraction at the abstraction of the world we reproduce, makes it look even more like the bullshit un-truth that it really is. Yet unlike the primitive of non-human animal life forms, it appears to be something far beyond the technology of current States. So in itself, the phenomena is a negation of civilized humans' claim over this world, at the consensual scientific realities that are taken for granted. Isn't astrophysics just a sophisticated propaganda machine, just like the field of astronomy in 1984? Are conspiracy nutjobs actually having a point about NASA being a political pseudo-scientific organization (or is science ever non-political?) serving the political needs for enforcing constructs upon people's minds, as a deep, background narrative in support of the more central political dynamics?